The heritage of voting rights

I've mentioned this before, but usually while blogging about a related topic, so here is a chance to highlight some historical context.

With the election of President Elect Barrack Obama, many African Americans feel a very satisfying and moving sense of full circle, of full enfranchisement and the finding of a glorious missing piece in their perception of dignity. I completely agree with this and applaud it. I pointed out that I do not feel the same way about, for example, needing to see a woman become President, one way or the other, but the heritage of slavery is by far a greater wound and thus the election of Barrack Obama is doubly beneficial and sweet.

I want, however, to gently correct some feeling about the history of the right to vote that is a bit more painfully felt than it was meant when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Many young and middle aged African Americans feel a sense of hurt about the painful denial of their vote when the country was founded and worse, the notorious developing of "fractional" equivalents for black and white votes when even those limited rights were conferred.

I understand the feelings since, of course, women could not vote either. Also, when I was young, people under the age of twenty one could not vote, so I still remember when the right to vote was given to eighteen year olds and I was able to vote for the first time. So I understand the wound that many African Americans feel when they think back to the Founding Fathers and feel discriminated against.

But in truth, it's not like they thought about giving the vote to African Americans and decided not to; it would never have crossed their minds at all. Why? Because voting was perceived to be a responsibility of land owners. This is why women could not vote either. Women being "irrational" was a latter day excuse; it was not the original reason for women, or young people, or slaves, or free blacks, or Indians not being allowed to vote. Few poor white people voted either. All of the world's cultures at that time derived from a separately developed but shared world view that voting or decision making was in the hands of land owners or, in tribal areas, "elders." So I have never felt hurt or personally insulted that women could not vote, since I am a student of history and understand that it was a class issue (land owners having "skin in the game" regarding society's view of their position as decision makers). That does not mean I would not be vigorous about pursuing the vote (though probably not as much of an extremist as some would like, had I been a potential activist during those times). I was thrilled at the right to eighteen year olds to vote, especially as the Vietnam draft underscored how our young men and women could fight, even drink in some states, but not vote.

Having said that, like I said, I fully understand the woundedness of many African Americans who read the Constitution, and view the Bill of Rights and Amendments as "corrections." That is a handy shorthand in a way, to think of voting enfranchisement as correction of an error, and in one sense it is, of course. However, it is not necessary to seek out more hurt than what is already inherent in the situation by viewing the Founding Fathers as being denying of rights. They were not withholding rights so much as they were giving rights to those who had traditionally held those rights from necessity, which is the "landed class." Sometimes it is easier to see where one is going if one more clearly see where and why people came from in their journey toward equality and social justice.

The Bible equivalent is that God did not invent slavery, but he gave rules to insist that the Israelites treat slaves more fairly and decently. Just because rules about slaves are given in the Bible (and the Qur'an) does not mean God endorsed slavery. God was insisting on a linkage between one's moral code (and thus acceptance in his eyes) and decent treatment of slaves, so long as humans were determined to have them. And it was, of course, from Christianity that the imperative to end slavery sprung.

I really wish that more history was taught in school. Just as an aside, when I went to school, we spent nearly a semester in grade school on the American Revolution. We learned the details of every single battle, for example; I am not exaggerating. That is not pointless, but the way that children learn about "what life was like" during those times, and why much of our civic and cultural structure exists as it does. When children study the battles they learn about the population, the militias, the volunteer army (a radical, VERY radical concept, as the Brits still "pressed" recruits, forcing them into their army and navy, while Americans fought with all volunteer local militias), the way people lived and what they needed (horse transportation, farming society, how vital trees were for firewood, etc). And they learn about diplomacy, and also the reality of how to deal with belligerence. I still remember what I learned, and it provides an essential context for feeling one "belongs" in this country, in its lineage. And this includes African Americans, as George Washington's constant companion was his servant, who was viewed as friend, companion, and aide in the conduct of the war. I was really surprised and disappointed when I learned that so much of American history has been dropped, to everyone's detriment of understanding. How many people today know that the USA fought a second war with Britain, the War of 1812, over the "pressing" of American citizens into the British army and navy? The volunteer army of the USA was a radical idea in the world, really, it was the only place that had such a phenomenon, and that really should be taught in some depth as it was when I was young.

Read about George Washington's valet, William Lee, at this link. Note that William Lee served for the entire eight years of the Revolutionary War, including in the thick of battle, right next to George Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lee_(valet)